Part III
In search of Democratisation
John Samuel
Subversion has become the hallmark of the postmodern politics- where everyone only has a user value. Party Politics has become less of an expression of intrinsic values or beliefs. It is has become an exercise in unethical instrumentalism to control the Sate and Market. The very ideal and idea of democracy is being subverted by the political elites, political parties and those technocrats who swear by democracy and undermine the very democratic process in a million ways!
Democracy works when citizens and the most marginalized people have the capability to ask questions, seek accountability from the state and participate in the process of governance. Democracy becomes meaningful when people can shape the state and the state, in turn, is capable of creating enabling social, political, economic and legal conditions wherein people can exercise their rights and realize the freedom from fear and want.
It is not merely elections or universal adult franchise that defines the process of democracy. While constitutional framework and human rights guarantees can form the grammar of democracy, it is always people and the ethical quality of political process that make democracy work. Democracy involves dignity, diversity, dissent, development, participation and accountability. Unless even the last person can celebrate her sense of dignity, exercise democratic dissent and inform and involve in the process of governance and development, democracy becomes an empty rhetoric. Democracy dies where discrimination begins and politics of exclusion takes root.
The most visible and dominant discourse on democracy is derived from the Athenian legacy (where women and slaves were excluded from the very process) of western- liberal democratic theory and the ideas that emerged during the enlightenment. So there is a need to reconstruct a pluralistic history of the process of democratization in other cultures as well as ethical traditions such as Buddhism and Islam. Amartya Sen in his recent book, The Argumentative Indian, discussed the various trajectories and histories of public argument and ethical governance (particularly that during the reign of Ashoka and later by the Moghal Emperor Akbar). Some of the most inspiring experiments of grassroots democratization and the claiming democracy at the national level emerged during the struggle against colonialism and apartheid. In the good governance, democratization and “rule of law” discussion there is hardly any mention about the freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela.
The process of Democratization is also a function of the culture and history at a given point in time. However, such histories and experience are often ignored or marginalized by the academic institutions and other proponents of the Euro- American model of liberal democracy. The very political economy of knowledge production, dissemination and marketing is still controlled by the privileged institutions and think tanks in the global north. Hence most of us are taught a privileged history and model of western-liberal democracy.
Democratization is a political as well an ethical process based on human dignity as well as empowerment of people wherein they participate, irrespective of gender, race, identity or age, in those decisions and institutions that affect their lives. Democratization involves devolution of power in all institutional arenas. This also means democratization of information, knowledge, economic resources and technology. Thus the ethics and practice of democratization is relevant from all institutional settings from family, to the state and global institutions. Democratization as political and ethical value depend on the equality of all human persons, and their rights to participate in social and political process, rights to development and rights to live with dignity.
While democratization is more of an ethical and political value, democracy is political System of government... True democratic governance requires both the process of democratization and the effectiveness of democracy as a political system, based on the Rule of Law and accountable institutions.
. The present predicament of the discourse on democracy is well captured by John Gaventa: “Around the world, the forms and meaning of democratic participation are under contestation. In Iraq, Fallujah is bombed in the name of making the country ready for democracy; in Indonesia, Ukraine and United States, voters and observers are gripped in debates and protest against electoral democracy; in Cancun and other global venues, streets are occupied by those demanding more democracy in global processes; in small villages and neighborhoods and grassroots groups are claiming their places in local democratic spaces. Democracy is at once the language of military power, neoliberal market forces, political parties, donor agencies and NGOs. What is going on?” He further elaborates: “the way to deal with crisis of democracy or democratic deficit, is to extend democracy itself- that is to go beyond traditional understanding of representative democracy, through creating and supporting more participatory spaces of citizens engagement, which in turn are built up on the rights and responsibilities of citizenship”
A substantive democratic governance demands radicalizing democracy, through the deepening and widening of the process of democratization of state and all institutions of governance. Social movements and civil society organizations, which act as counterbalances and counterweights to the dominant powers of state and non-state actors, have an important role in deepening democratic process and expand the spaces wherein poor and excluded people can participate as well as challenge the process of governance. Power relationship is inherent in the process of governance at various levels.
The process of democratization has both grassroots and global dimensions. Such a process will necessarily involves the empowerment of women, minorities and the disenfranchised people, due to historical of structural reasons. Democratization at the global level requires free flow of information, knowledge and coordinated action and a shared sense of global solidarity based on the values of Justice, equality and human rights. Such a sense of solidarity can be built in the public sphere through “communicative action”. Habermas explains the conditions for reaching a common understanding: “I speak of communicative action when the action orientations of the participating actors are not coordinated via egocentric calculations of success, but through acts of understanding. Participants are not primarily oriented towards their own success in communicative action: they pursue their individual goal under the condition that they can coordinate their action plans on the basis of shared definitions of the situation”. Such a shared sense of communicative action also implies argumentative rationatinality, where in participants in a discourse are open to be persuaded by the better argument and the relations of power and hierarchies recede in the background. The goal of such communicative action is to reach reasoned consensus. Sense of solidarity, a sense of identifying with fellow human beings with a sense of shared bond of humanness and dignity, can make the process of democratization deliberate, creative and participatory.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
In Praise of Political Parties
Part II
Subversion of Political Parties and Democratic Values.
John Samuel
While most of the countries in the Western Europe and North America have a longer history and institutional basis of political parties, that is not the case in most of other countries. The case of India seems to be an exception, where there is a vibrant network of political party system. This is partly because of the fact that many of the political parties evolved over a period of hundred years, particularly in the context of the Freedom Struggle from the second half the 19th century. While South Africa and parts of Latin America have an emerging political party system, in most of the world political parties are often very fragile, ephemeral or a farce of the ruling elite.
One of the reasons for a very unstable democratic process in most of the parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America is the very character and nature of fragile political party system. The fragile political party system is a result of multiple factors that shaped the history, society and politics of these countries after the Second World War. Most of the countries that got freedom from the yoke of the Western European Powers failed to develop their own polity or the political process rooted in the respective context, history and society of the respective countries.
The very process of decolonizing also involved sowing the seeds of conflicts based on ethnicity, religion and identity in most of the countries. Unlike the case of India, there were not many mass struggles or wider political mobilization for freedom from the Colonial Powers. The struggle against colonialisation and imperialism was in many ways the beginning of the process of democratization and political process in most of countries in the world. The process of decolonizing also ensured the emergence of faulty and fragile democratic systems and process – more often initiated by an educated elite minority in conjunction with the erstwhile colonial powers.
There has been hardly any social, cultural and political process of nation-state formation in many of the earlier colonies- which the imperial powers almost treated as territories for extraction of material, agricultural or mineral resources. As a result, the notion of a modern nation-state was often superimposed on territories and areas where power primarily operated through traditional forms of structures and systems like tribalism or feudalism. In most of the cases, a liberal–democratic system was super imposed either on feudalism, tribalism and theocratic formations. In the absence of social transformation or transitions, democracy was often a veneer to sustain the feudal and tribal power-networks. This most of the political parties reflected the feudal or tribal charatecteristics of the dominant social forces in country.
In most of the decolonized countries, the process of governance was lead by a minority of the western educated elite class, nurtured by the erstwhile rulers or their institution and heavily depended on an aid system that gave them money and legitimacy. The leaders of many of these former colonies derived their primary legitimacy from the position they held and the support they got from the erstwhile colonial masters or their allies. This meant that least of investment in developing and nurturing a vibrant political party system as it would have become a thorn in the flush of their power. So, most of the leaders in the erstwhile colonies used political parties as a necessary evil to ensure some veneer of socio-political legitimacy in their own countries and in the world.
The very process of nation-state and nationality process in Africa, Asia and many other countries are negotiated by the colonial powers in the first half of the twentieth century. The process of decolonization also involved sowing seeds of conflicts in many of the erstwhile colonies and making them dependent on the formal imperial powers for ideas, aid, weapons and legitimacy. A fragmented polity, perpetual conflict, and dependent economic system were sure recipe for poverty, oppression and subversion. The result is everywhere to see. Even today the arbitrators of the so-called democracy in the south are very much the institutions and the leaders in the North.
Another important reason for the fragile political party system in the Global South is the very impact of the cold war. In the name of sustaining and promoting democracy, the United States and its allies in many ways killed the very democratic process. This was done by eliminating a whole generation of dynamic and committed leadership of the left leaning opposition parties and the communist parties. During the cold war period, both the Western and Eastern Block fought for the soul of many countries, by funding political parties, political leaders as well making the opposition leaders or parties impotent through a well planned process of annihilation and co-option.
This very process of intervention by the external forces undermined the institutional framework and political party system in most of the global south. In fact, the Cold war politics of aid, subversive education and ideological dependencies by the Western and Eastern Blocks of Power- based on Euro-centric ideas- made the very foundation of the political party process weak and fragile. As a result most of the countries in the South depended on the policy framework of either Soviet Union or the West for shaping the very process of governance and economy. This dependency syndrome in terms of ideas, knowledge and legitimacy had far reaching implication in terms of weakening the polity, policy process and political system of each of the countries in the global south.
This is where India is very different from most of the other decolonized countries. In the Indian context, the very long history freedom struggle and the primary role of the Indian National Congress and other political process helped a rather deep socialization of political parties. So in many ways the vibrant spectrum of political parties, based on identity, ideology and commonly shared platform for freedom struggle paved the way for decolonization and social reforms, rather than the other way around. In case of India, the Gandhian political praxis and social ethics – distinct from the imported knowledge-policy frame work from Europe- influenced almost all the political party process in India. Other bold experiments and theorization by scholar-activists like Ambedkar, Nehru and range of social reformers helped inject a sort of Indian ethos and civilization content to the political party process in India... The vibrant multiparty system, with multiple ideological and identity base helped to sustain, stabilize and strengthen a unique brand of Indian Democratic system. . In fact, apart from the Congress party, the left parties and the parties on the right too contributed to make India a viable multiparty democracy. The fact that most of the Indian politicians still wear Khadi or prefer Indian dress code (as distinct from many other countries in South-East Asia, Africa or elsewhere) is a bit of reflection of the “congress system” and Gandhian legacy.
However, in many of the other South Asian countries, the absence of a vibrant multi-party system weakened the governance as well as democracy. During the cold war period, most of the left political forces in other parts of South Asia was subverted or eradicated by the nexus of ruling elite and western political and economic forces. The eradication of left political forces from Pakistan and Bangladesh actually had long term political impact in weakening the foundations of democratic process in both countries. The deep rooted feudal values( family based politics is an indication) and identity politics based on cast, religion or ethnicity and sub-nationalities shaped the very character, hierarchy of political party systems South Asia, including India.
Hence the secular values, or cosmopolitan political ethos and democratic values are actually skin deep in almost all the political party system in India and the rest of South Asia.
Subversion of Political Parties and Democratic Values.
John Samuel
While most of the countries in the Western Europe and North America have a longer history and institutional basis of political parties, that is not the case in most of other countries. The case of India seems to be an exception, where there is a vibrant network of political party system. This is partly because of the fact that many of the political parties evolved over a period of hundred years, particularly in the context of the Freedom Struggle from the second half the 19th century. While South Africa and parts of Latin America have an emerging political party system, in most of the world political parties are often very fragile, ephemeral or a farce of the ruling elite.
One of the reasons for a very unstable democratic process in most of the parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America is the very character and nature of fragile political party system. The fragile political party system is a result of multiple factors that shaped the history, society and politics of these countries after the Second World War. Most of the countries that got freedom from the yoke of the Western European Powers failed to develop their own polity or the political process rooted in the respective context, history and society of the respective countries.
The very process of decolonizing also involved sowing the seeds of conflicts based on ethnicity, religion and identity in most of the countries. Unlike the case of India, there were not many mass struggles or wider political mobilization for freedom from the Colonial Powers. The struggle against colonialisation and imperialism was in many ways the beginning of the process of democratization and political process in most of countries in the world. The process of decolonizing also ensured the emergence of faulty and fragile democratic systems and process – more often initiated by an educated elite minority in conjunction with the erstwhile colonial powers.
There has been hardly any social, cultural and political process of nation-state formation in many of the earlier colonies- which the imperial powers almost treated as territories for extraction of material, agricultural or mineral resources. As a result, the notion of a modern nation-state was often superimposed on territories and areas where power primarily operated through traditional forms of structures and systems like tribalism or feudalism. In most of the cases, a liberal–democratic system was super imposed either on feudalism, tribalism and theocratic formations. In the absence of social transformation or transitions, democracy was often a veneer to sustain the feudal and tribal power-networks. This most of the political parties reflected the feudal or tribal charatecteristics of the dominant social forces in country.
In most of the decolonized countries, the process of governance was lead by a minority of the western educated elite class, nurtured by the erstwhile rulers or their institution and heavily depended on an aid system that gave them money and legitimacy. The leaders of many of these former colonies derived their primary legitimacy from the position they held and the support they got from the erstwhile colonial masters or their allies. This meant that least of investment in developing and nurturing a vibrant political party system as it would have become a thorn in the flush of their power. So, most of the leaders in the erstwhile colonies used political parties as a necessary evil to ensure some veneer of socio-political legitimacy in their own countries and in the world.
The very process of nation-state and nationality process in Africa, Asia and many other countries are negotiated by the colonial powers in the first half of the twentieth century. The process of decolonization also involved sowing seeds of conflicts in many of the erstwhile colonies and making them dependent on the formal imperial powers for ideas, aid, weapons and legitimacy. A fragmented polity, perpetual conflict, and dependent economic system were sure recipe for poverty, oppression and subversion. The result is everywhere to see. Even today the arbitrators of the so-called democracy in the south are very much the institutions and the leaders in the North.
Another important reason for the fragile political party system in the Global South is the very impact of the cold war. In the name of sustaining and promoting democracy, the United States and its allies in many ways killed the very democratic process. This was done by eliminating a whole generation of dynamic and committed leadership of the left leaning opposition parties and the communist parties. During the cold war period, both the Western and Eastern Block fought for the soul of many countries, by funding political parties, political leaders as well making the opposition leaders or parties impotent through a well planned process of annihilation and co-option.
This very process of intervention by the external forces undermined the institutional framework and political party system in most of the global south. In fact, the Cold war politics of aid, subversive education and ideological dependencies by the Western and Eastern Blocks of Power- based on Euro-centric ideas- made the very foundation of the political party process weak and fragile. As a result most of the countries in the South depended on the policy framework of either Soviet Union or the West for shaping the very process of governance and economy. This dependency syndrome in terms of ideas, knowledge and legitimacy had far reaching implication in terms of weakening the polity, policy process and political system of each of the countries in the global south.
This is where India is very different from most of the other decolonized countries. In the Indian context, the very long history freedom struggle and the primary role of the Indian National Congress and other political process helped a rather deep socialization of political parties. So in many ways the vibrant spectrum of political parties, based on identity, ideology and commonly shared platform for freedom struggle paved the way for decolonization and social reforms, rather than the other way around. In case of India, the Gandhian political praxis and social ethics – distinct from the imported knowledge-policy frame work from Europe- influenced almost all the political party process in India. Other bold experiments and theorization by scholar-activists like Ambedkar, Nehru and range of social reformers helped inject a sort of Indian ethos and civilization content to the political party process in India... The vibrant multiparty system, with multiple ideological and identity base helped to sustain, stabilize and strengthen a unique brand of Indian Democratic system. . In fact, apart from the Congress party, the left parties and the parties on the right too contributed to make India a viable multiparty democracy. The fact that most of the Indian politicians still wear Khadi or prefer Indian dress code (as distinct from many other countries in South-East Asia, Africa or elsewhere) is a bit of reflection of the “congress system” and Gandhian legacy.
However, in many of the other South Asian countries, the absence of a vibrant multi-party system weakened the governance as well as democracy. During the cold war period, most of the left political forces in other parts of South Asia was subverted or eradicated by the nexus of ruling elite and western political and economic forces. The eradication of left political forces from Pakistan and Bangladesh actually had long term political impact in weakening the foundations of democratic process in both countries. The deep rooted feudal values( family based politics is an indication) and identity politics based on cast, religion or ethnicity and sub-nationalities shaped the very character, hierarchy of political party systems South Asia, including India.
Hence the secular values, or cosmopolitan political ethos and democratic values are actually skin deep in almost all the political party system in India and the rest of South Asia.
Monday, February 11, 2008
In Praise of Political Parties
PartI
Party Politics and Democracy
John Samuel
This is the first part of a series of reflections on political parties in the context of democratic governance.
The quality and stability of democratic process depend on the quality and strength of the institutional frame-work and socio-political process that sustain the body politics of a country. While a good constitutional framework and electoral process are important indicators of a democratic system, elections are not in themselves a guarantee for the success of a democracy.
Political Parties are one of the most crucial factors for the sustenance of a viable democratic system. There seems to be a direct connection between the health of the political party system and the vitality and long term viability of a democracy. A vibrant system of political party serves the role of blood vessels of the body politics of a given country.
Political parties are socio-political institutions, in the public sphere, that help citizens to interface and negotiate with the state. Political parties are also primary legitimizing agents of the government and governing systems of the state. On the one hand they play the most crucial role of representing the citizens, people, and societal interests and issue that concern a large number of people at a given point in time. On the other hand, political parties also serve as the network mechanism of the institutions of the state and major forces of power, operating in a given context. So, there are very important political, social, cultural and class dimensions of political party system. The more political parties are rooted in the the real issues mneeds and aspirations of the people, there is more chance for the party to thrive.
In the absence of a multi-party system- with grass-roots presence, a committed cadre of leaders and wide network with in the society- democratic process can be subverted and political process can be appropriated by a minority of vested interests. Though such vested interests may conveniently use one political party or even create one to serve their purpose of sustaining power, they tend to annihilate and subvert all other political party process. This is one of the single biggest challenges for the sustenance of a vibrant democratic system of governance
The social function and legitimizing role of political parties are under unprecedented strain. In most of the countries, political parties have rather less institutional history and social roots. Many of them emerged as a corollary to the state power and an instrument to sustain the state power. In most of the countries, particularly decolonized countries, the nation states as well as political parties are the consequences of decolonization rather than causes of decolonization
One of the key distinctions between mature democracies and vulnerable democracies is the state of political parties in the respective countries. In many ways, the strength, limitations and the contradictions of the political party system get reflected in the process of governance and the character of the state.
An educated and economically sustainable middle class play a very crucial role in the making and unmaking of the political parties. In many of the countries, the absence of a vibrant middle class, and the presence of a very small minority of political elites undermine the process of democracy. Political Parties, as institutions, do require funds and this requires an active economy with people or organisations with surplus money to fund the parties, either because of an interest or an issue. In most of the countries, the absence of a middle class or vibrant economy makes political parties as unviable institutions.
Political parties across the world are facing a crisis. They have been reduced to mere electoral mechanism or network to capture the power of the State. They are less and less social institutions or legitimizing agents of political process and increasingly turned in to “interest-networks” promoted by the larger economic forces and identity politics of various shades. In most of the so-called democracies, elections and politics are shaped and mediated by the big media empires and funded by big corporate power. This increasing dependence on media and corporate funds undermine the very character and autonomy of political party system. As a result, the new political-corporate elites are in the business of subverting politics and policy framework of the state to maximize profit for few dominant economic forces in a given economy.
Many of the political parties are now controlled by a “power-clique” and “fund-managers”, blessed by media and sustained by the corporate funds. The validity of the Presidential Candidate in the USA depends of how much money they raise from the corporate powers and how much rating they got from the surveys conducted by media empires. As a result, elections are reduced to media stunts with “brand” slogans, empty “policy rhetoric”, devoid of any in-depth political process or social mediation.
When media mediation replaces the social mediation, the very values of democracy get undermined and subverted. Political parties are filled with career politician with a single point agenda of getting of piece of state power and the privileges and paraphernalia that come with the package. There are less and less poets, philosophers, visionaries, scholars, social activists, or policy experts in political parties. As many social activists, writers and intellectuals choose to work within the civil society, political parties are facing an acute deficit of creative and ethical leadership.
Party Politics and Democracy
John Samuel
This is the first part of a series of reflections on political parties in the context of democratic governance.
The quality and stability of democratic process depend on the quality and strength of the institutional frame-work and socio-political process that sustain the body politics of a country. While a good constitutional framework and electoral process are important indicators of a democratic system, elections are not in themselves a guarantee for the success of a democracy.
Political Parties are one of the most crucial factors for the sustenance of a viable democratic system. There seems to be a direct connection between the health of the political party system and the vitality and long term viability of a democracy. A vibrant system of political party serves the role of blood vessels of the body politics of a given country.
Political parties are socio-political institutions, in the public sphere, that help citizens to interface and negotiate with the state. Political parties are also primary legitimizing agents of the government and governing systems of the state. On the one hand they play the most crucial role of representing the citizens, people, and societal interests and issue that concern a large number of people at a given point in time. On the other hand, political parties also serve as the network mechanism of the institutions of the state and major forces of power, operating in a given context. So, there are very important political, social, cultural and class dimensions of political party system. The more political parties are rooted in the the real issues mneeds and aspirations of the people, there is more chance for the party to thrive.
In the absence of a multi-party system- with grass-roots presence, a committed cadre of leaders and wide network with in the society- democratic process can be subverted and political process can be appropriated by a minority of vested interests. Though such vested interests may conveniently use one political party or even create one to serve their purpose of sustaining power, they tend to annihilate and subvert all other political party process. This is one of the single biggest challenges for the sustenance of a vibrant democratic system of governance
The social function and legitimizing role of political parties are under unprecedented strain. In most of the countries, political parties have rather less institutional history and social roots. Many of them emerged as a corollary to the state power and an instrument to sustain the state power. In most of the countries, particularly decolonized countries, the nation states as well as political parties are the consequences of decolonization rather than causes of decolonization
One of the key distinctions between mature democracies and vulnerable democracies is the state of political parties in the respective countries. In many ways, the strength, limitations and the contradictions of the political party system get reflected in the process of governance and the character of the state.
An educated and economically sustainable middle class play a very crucial role in the making and unmaking of the political parties. In many of the countries, the absence of a vibrant middle class, and the presence of a very small minority of political elites undermine the process of democracy. Political Parties, as institutions, do require funds and this requires an active economy with people or organisations with surplus money to fund the parties, either because of an interest or an issue. In most of the countries, the absence of a middle class or vibrant economy makes political parties as unviable institutions.
Political parties across the world are facing a crisis. They have been reduced to mere electoral mechanism or network to capture the power of the State. They are less and less social institutions or legitimizing agents of political process and increasingly turned in to “interest-networks” promoted by the larger economic forces and identity politics of various shades. In most of the so-called democracies, elections and politics are shaped and mediated by the big media empires and funded by big corporate power. This increasing dependence on media and corporate funds undermine the very character and autonomy of political party system. As a result, the new political-corporate elites are in the business of subverting politics and policy framework of the state to maximize profit for few dominant economic forces in a given economy.
Many of the political parties are now controlled by a “power-clique” and “fund-managers”, blessed by media and sustained by the corporate funds. The validity of the Presidential Candidate in the USA depends of how much money they raise from the corporate powers and how much rating they got from the surveys conducted by media empires. As a result, elections are reduced to media stunts with “brand” slogans, empty “policy rhetoric”, devoid of any in-depth political process or social mediation.
When media mediation replaces the social mediation, the very values of democracy get undermined and subverted. Political parties are filled with career politician with a single point agenda of getting of piece of state power and the privileges and paraphernalia that come with the package. There are less and less poets, philosophers, visionaries, scholars, social activists, or policy experts in political parties. As many social activists, writers and intellectuals choose to work within the civil society, political parties are facing an acute deficit of creative and ethical leadership.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
The New Divine Comedy of Politics
: The Priest is back
John Samuel
In the beginning there was word, word was with God and word was God. Then the Priest came to represent the Word and the God. Then came the sword. Sword was with the Prince. And sword was the Prince. Then prince became the state and State became the sword. Then came the trade. Trade was with the merchant. Trade was Merchant. Merchant became the Market. Market became the Missionary. Hence, the World was made of words, swords and trade. Word was spread through the sword. Words sustained the sword. Then trade helped to spread the word and the sword. Here began the divine comedy of words, sword and trade. Priests, Prince and Merchant ran the world with their words, swords and trade. This divine comedy is the mother of all politics.
Politics is the dynamics of power-relations in a given society at a given point in time. Power relations often get channeled thorough and negotiated by social institutions. Historically, socio-cultural institutions like religion, clans, tribe and family played a very important role in channeling, mediating and negotiating power and political process.
Divinity was evoked to legitimize and sustain power in the realm of religious institutions and religion often subcontracted such process to family by “legalizing” and legitimizing the most important events of human life- birth, death, and procreation through male-female relationships. Religion created the soft-power through beliefs, knowledge, myths, rituals and institutions. Such a sense of soft-power was a pre-requisite to build hard power through the sword. Priest became the first ideologue of political power. He gave moral legitimacy for domination through patriarchy. The Brahmin, Mullah, Monk, or the Bishops interpreted the world and legalized the words- by making the norms, canons and law. Priests played multiple roles as philosophers, theologians, teachers, sorcerer and alchemists. Priests created the “order of things”. Priest was a necessity for the entry and sustenance of the Prince. The most common form of evident power was always the “physical” contestation to acquire and dominate. This gets institutionalized through weapons, army and war. Military provided the bull-work to dominate and sustain power for the Prince- from Darius to Alexander to the Romans, from Genghis Khan to Ottomans Turks, from Napoleon to Hitler, and from Stalin to George Bush!
Power was legitimized by the Priests, disguised as philosophers or teachers, and sustained by the Military of the Prince. The hegemony at given time was managed through the process of creating consent (often through religious –social networks) and coercion (by the Military power of the Prince). Priest and the prince together made the Law and Order- where they combined the power of the word and the sword.
With the emergence of trade, market, and surpluses, money began to play a role in shaping politics. Eventually the art of politics was managed by the Prince (with weapons and army), Priest (who derive authority from the divine) and the Merchant (who financed war). The entire colonial project and imperialist politics were driven by the old power trinity of the Prince- Priest and Merchant. They used trade, sword and bible to appropriate territories, markets, culture and human mind. In many ways religions and priests provided the moral and ideological framework to capture and dominate the world. Most of the major religions spread across the world either through sword or trade. Hence, the priest was an ideological necessity to give moral veneer to any act of atrocity and domination. All major religions have the smell of blood acquired through war and plunder at one point or other point in history. Patriarchy, totem and taboo and identity based contestation became the underlying factors to acquire, sustain and manage power relationships.
Then the nation-state came. Prince, Priest and Merchants were not supposed to be in charge. “We the people” were supposed to be in charge of the modern manifestation of power. New institutional formations came into being to channel, negotiate and sustain power. That is how political parties came in as a modern social- and political institution, in the context of the liberal democratic politics and state.
With the separation of the Church and State, a relatively secular democratic process emerged in many of the countries in Europe and other parts of the world. Secular democracy became the flavour of the month. Thus the priest and the merchant retreated to background of the political process. The emergence of the political parties helped to replace the old political nexus of Prince-Priest and the Merchant. In the process, the new power-elites competed with each other, in the name of various political parties, to capture and sustain the state power. Those leaders in the business of capturing and sustaining state power, through “democratic processes, became the modern day equivalent of the Prince.
In the course of democratic exercise of capturing and sustaining the state power, merchants once again came to the forefront as the financiers of the political parties and electoral process. This nexus of political elites and powerful corporate elites appropriated the modern state and institutions of governance. With the emergence of neo-liberal policy framework, the cash-rich corporate leaders began to influence political and policy making process through financing political parties, electoral process and through knowledge- media network.
While this new nexus subverted the democratic process and appropriated the policy making process, political party leaders lost the moral authority to influence society or people. This made them increasingly dependent on religious institutions and networks to seek social legitimacy and to gather votes. They needed the blessings of Bishops- Mullahs or Swamis or Monks to sustain to their State power and electoral base. Thus, the priest too returned to the forefront of the political process.
So the old nexus of the Prince, Priest and Merchants are back in their new avatar of the power trinity of political leaders- transnational corporations- new religious networks and leaders. In spite of secularism and democracy, religion refuses to fade away from politics (with their divine commissions, sanctions, authority and vested interests). Religious leaders and networks too adopted a marketing approach, using modern media, advertisement, high-tech networking and strategic influence to increase their power and presence. Military and market are still in charge in most of the countries in the world. In many cases, both the religious institutions and the military are in the business of discrediting, undermining and sabotaging political parties to sustain their power. Media often play a subservient role to Market and Religion- as both are sources of revenue. Instead of being the fourth-estate among the democratic institutions, Media has become the pimp of the new power trinity... They have successfully appropriated the state power and institutions of governance- by subverting the political process.
The interesting thing is that most of the authoritarian military regimes do not touch religion and many a time they rule in collusion with religion or religious institutions. Such religious institutions or network are also well entrenched social network to channel power, to collect information, to manage, to control and to dominate through power-networks of the prince and the priests. The prince and the priest tend to seek validation and resources from the merchant to sustain the power. All three of the “power-characters” see political parities as a necessary modern evil! This new power nexus has either appropriated political parties as an instrument to capture state power or discredited political parties to directly capture the state power through military coup.
Thus democracy has been reduced to a formal electoral mechanism or a farce. Democracy is often used as a mere veneer of legitimacy to capture and sustain State- Power. In fact, the priest is back in the form of new conservatism, in the form of vote-bank, in the form of new fundamentalism and in the form of new identity politics. As the political parties and leaders get seduced into the big money and corrupt practices, the religious leaders (Bishops, Mullahs, Swamis and Monks) tend to influence society through their media, social network and identity politics; harvesting on the new insecurities and paranoia in the context of consumerism, advanced capitalism and terrorism.
Thus Politics itself is being turned into a Divine Comedy- where Priests once again return to the centre stage with their divine aura and new marketing techniques to become the king-makers in the postmodern world. Prince and Merchants get into in to a new power-sharing. In the process, state becomes subservient to market, with the blessings of the Priest. Citizens are reduced to consumers or believers- who are ready to buy and follow, who are ready to kill themselves or be killed for their beliefs. When the citizens are robbed off their sense of agency, most of the “mass” end up as the puppets of the merchant or priests and they dance to tune of the prince. This dancing of “mass” –alienated from the sense of agency- to the tune of Priests – to the tune of new conservatism, fundamentalism and politics of exclusion- make a bad divine comedy of Politics. It makes a tragedy of democratic process.
It is high time to reclaim the state and democratic process from the new avatars of the old nexus of Prince-Priest – Merchants. It is also time to ensure that the Bishops-Mullahs Swamis and Monks do not make a divine comedy out of democracy.
John Samuel
In the beginning there was word, word was with God and word was God. Then the Priest came to represent the Word and the God. Then came the sword. Sword was with the Prince. And sword was the Prince. Then prince became the state and State became the sword. Then came the trade. Trade was with the merchant. Trade was Merchant. Merchant became the Market. Market became the Missionary. Hence, the World was made of words, swords and trade. Word was spread through the sword. Words sustained the sword. Then trade helped to spread the word and the sword. Here began the divine comedy of words, sword and trade. Priests, Prince and Merchant ran the world with their words, swords and trade. This divine comedy is the mother of all politics.
Politics is the dynamics of power-relations in a given society at a given point in time. Power relations often get channeled thorough and negotiated by social institutions. Historically, socio-cultural institutions like religion, clans, tribe and family played a very important role in channeling, mediating and negotiating power and political process.
Divinity was evoked to legitimize and sustain power in the realm of religious institutions and religion often subcontracted such process to family by “legalizing” and legitimizing the most important events of human life- birth, death, and procreation through male-female relationships. Religion created the soft-power through beliefs, knowledge, myths, rituals and institutions. Such a sense of soft-power was a pre-requisite to build hard power through the sword. Priest became the first ideologue of political power. He gave moral legitimacy for domination through patriarchy. The Brahmin, Mullah, Monk, or the Bishops interpreted the world and legalized the words- by making the norms, canons and law. Priests played multiple roles as philosophers, theologians, teachers, sorcerer and alchemists. Priests created the “order of things”. Priest was a necessity for the entry and sustenance of the Prince. The most common form of evident power was always the “physical” contestation to acquire and dominate. This gets institutionalized through weapons, army and war. Military provided the bull-work to dominate and sustain power for the Prince- from Darius to Alexander to the Romans, from Genghis Khan to Ottomans Turks, from Napoleon to Hitler, and from Stalin to George Bush!
Power was legitimized by the Priests, disguised as philosophers or teachers, and sustained by the Military of the Prince. The hegemony at given time was managed through the process of creating consent (often through religious –social networks) and coercion (by the Military power of the Prince). Priest and the prince together made the Law and Order- where they combined the power of the word and the sword.
With the emergence of trade, market, and surpluses, money began to play a role in shaping politics. Eventually the art of politics was managed by the Prince (with weapons and army), Priest (who derive authority from the divine) and the Merchant (who financed war). The entire colonial project and imperialist politics were driven by the old power trinity of the Prince- Priest and Merchant. They used trade, sword and bible to appropriate territories, markets, culture and human mind. In many ways religions and priests provided the moral and ideological framework to capture and dominate the world. Most of the major religions spread across the world either through sword or trade. Hence, the priest was an ideological necessity to give moral veneer to any act of atrocity and domination. All major religions have the smell of blood acquired through war and plunder at one point or other point in history. Patriarchy, totem and taboo and identity based contestation became the underlying factors to acquire, sustain and manage power relationships.
Then the nation-state came. Prince, Priest and Merchants were not supposed to be in charge. “We the people” were supposed to be in charge of the modern manifestation of power. New institutional formations came into being to channel, negotiate and sustain power. That is how political parties came in as a modern social- and political institution, in the context of the liberal democratic politics and state.
With the separation of the Church and State, a relatively secular democratic process emerged in many of the countries in Europe and other parts of the world. Secular democracy became the flavour of the month. Thus the priest and the merchant retreated to background of the political process. The emergence of the political parties helped to replace the old political nexus of Prince-Priest and the Merchant. In the process, the new power-elites competed with each other, in the name of various political parties, to capture and sustain the state power. Those leaders in the business of capturing and sustaining state power, through “democratic processes, became the modern day equivalent of the Prince.
In the course of democratic exercise of capturing and sustaining the state power, merchants once again came to the forefront as the financiers of the political parties and electoral process. This nexus of political elites and powerful corporate elites appropriated the modern state and institutions of governance. With the emergence of neo-liberal policy framework, the cash-rich corporate leaders began to influence political and policy making process through financing political parties, electoral process and through knowledge- media network.
While this new nexus subverted the democratic process and appropriated the policy making process, political party leaders lost the moral authority to influence society or people. This made them increasingly dependent on religious institutions and networks to seek social legitimacy and to gather votes. They needed the blessings of Bishops- Mullahs or Swamis or Monks to sustain to their State power and electoral base. Thus, the priest too returned to the forefront of the political process.
So the old nexus of the Prince, Priest and Merchants are back in their new avatar of the power trinity of political leaders- transnational corporations- new religious networks and leaders. In spite of secularism and democracy, religion refuses to fade away from politics (with their divine commissions, sanctions, authority and vested interests). Religious leaders and networks too adopted a marketing approach, using modern media, advertisement, high-tech networking and strategic influence to increase their power and presence. Military and market are still in charge in most of the countries in the world. In many cases, both the religious institutions and the military are in the business of discrediting, undermining and sabotaging political parties to sustain their power. Media often play a subservient role to Market and Religion- as both are sources of revenue. Instead of being the fourth-estate among the democratic institutions, Media has become the pimp of the new power trinity... They have successfully appropriated the state power and institutions of governance- by subverting the political process.
The interesting thing is that most of the authoritarian military regimes do not touch religion and many a time they rule in collusion with religion or religious institutions. Such religious institutions or network are also well entrenched social network to channel power, to collect information, to manage, to control and to dominate through power-networks of the prince and the priests. The prince and the priest tend to seek validation and resources from the merchant to sustain the power. All three of the “power-characters” see political parities as a necessary modern evil! This new power nexus has either appropriated political parties as an instrument to capture state power or discredited political parties to directly capture the state power through military coup.
Thus democracy has been reduced to a formal electoral mechanism or a farce. Democracy is often used as a mere veneer of legitimacy to capture and sustain State- Power. In fact, the priest is back in the form of new conservatism, in the form of vote-bank, in the form of new fundamentalism and in the form of new identity politics. As the political parties and leaders get seduced into the big money and corrupt practices, the religious leaders (Bishops, Mullahs, Swamis and Monks) tend to influence society through their media, social network and identity politics; harvesting on the new insecurities and paranoia in the context of consumerism, advanced capitalism and terrorism.
Thus Politics itself is being turned into a Divine Comedy- where Priests once again return to the centre stage with their divine aura and new marketing techniques to become the king-makers in the postmodern world. Prince and Merchants get into in to a new power-sharing. In the process, state becomes subservient to market, with the blessings of the Priest. Citizens are reduced to consumers or believers- who are ready to buy and follow, who are ready to kill themselves or be killed for their beliefs. When the citizens are robbed off their sense of agency, most of the “mass” end up as the puppets of the merchant or priests and they dance to tune of the prince. This dancing of “mass” –alienated from the sense of agency- to the tune of Priests – to the tune of new conservatism, fundamentalism and politics of exclusion- make a bad divine comedy of Politics. It makes a tragedy of democratic process.
It is high time to reclaim the state and democratic process from the new avatars of the old nexus of Prince-Priest – Merchants. It is also time to ensure that the Bishops-Mullahs Swamis and Monks do not make a divine comedy out of democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)